At 05:34 PM 9/1/2015, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>SNIP
>DP:  I get it that there are lots of governments out there that want 
>to dictate policy here, and that we're trying to make sure that 
>doesn't happen.  I think an ENFORCEABLE requirement that the Board 
>can only implement consensus policies relating to the 
>security/stability of the DNS is going to be the only real 
>protection against it happening, regardless of the voting allocation 
>formulas and/or the provisions regarding GAC advice.
>
>MM: What if there _is_ a rough consensus among the active 
>constellation of actors in the ICANN regime that it should do 
>something that is outside its mandate? There is, e.g., often 
>consensus and/or a democratic majority in the U.S. that an unpopular 
>speaker's freedom of expression rights should be suppressed.

That's precisely what the IRP is for, no?  I know most of the 
discussion has stressed the IRP's role in constraining the Board, and 
that is as it should be - but if the corporation acts outside of its 
mandate, the IRP is/should be empowered to declare the action 
invalid, even if it is supported by consensus. [Put differently: the 
IRP constrains the community, too ...] I think that's clear from the 
current language in the proposal, though I could be wrong about that 
(in which case I'd recommend that it be fixed).
David


*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications 
etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************